Bentley v. Lamb
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1885, No. 142. This was an action of assumpsit upon a due bill given to ■plaintiff by defendant’s testator. The narr, in addition to the common counts, contained a special count on the due bill. The pleas were non assumpsit, payment with leave, &e.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1885, No. 142. This was an action of assumpsit upon a due bill given to ■plaintiff by defendant’s testator. The narr, in addition to the common counts, contained a special count on the due bill. The pleas were non assumpsit, payment with leave, &e. The action was brought on the. following due bill: “ Phila., April 5th, 1883. “ Due Miss Julia W. Lamb, Three thousand dollars additional compensation as saleslady in my store, No. 728 Spring Garden Street, payable within one year after my decease by my Executors or…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Green
We do not see how we can say as matter of law that there was no evidence of a consideration for the obligation in suit. There was no testimony as to what the actual agreement of the parties was in regard to the compensation to be paid to the plaintiff for her services. There was inferential evidence that it was six dollars per week, because that amount was paid to, and accepted by her, for one week’s service after the testator’s death. But this is not necessarily inconsistent with a possible promise that she should be paid a larger suni. It is of course consistent with the theory that the sum…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Paxson v. NieldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Lipsmeier v. VehslageU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1886
- Cochran v. StevensonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921